MacDeffe wrote:I have to correct myself about the Clynelish OB, had a dram of the current 14yo tonight and it was a very fine dram! 46% does matter (more than age)

macdeffe

I don't get this 46% business at all? Its seems an arbitrary number to me? What about 45% or 47% and what about cask strength? Surely the best strength depends on the whisky and the drinker? Or is 46% simply the new "magic number" that 40% was many years ago? And if 42 was the answer to the universe, then maybe 42% the answer to whisky strength as well?

This is a nod in the direction of whisky heritage and the old degrees proof scale of measuring alcohol content.

In the really old days the standard bottling strength of whisky was 20 under proof (20 u.p.) so with proof = 100, 20 under proof = 80 degrees proof which translates in modern times into 46% alcohol which is where this strength originates.

However this involves a slight rounding up, the exact measurement is 45.7 or 45.8 so what you have here is the traditional Talisker bottliing strength.

Strength has been progressively reduced over the years to 75 proof (43%) then 70 proof (40%) but the historic strengths do live on reflected in the most common %age alcohol levels used.

FirewallXL5 wrote:This is a nod in the direction of whisky heritage and the old degrees proof scale of measuring alcohol content.

In the really old days the standard bottling strength of whisky was 20 under proof (20 u.p.) so with proof = 100, 20 under proof = 80 degrees proof which translates in modern times into 46% alcohol which is where this strength originates.

However this involves a slight rounding up, the exact measurement is 45.7 or 45.8 so what you have here is the traditional Talisker bottliing strength.

Strength has been progressively reduced over the years to 75 proof (43%) then 70 proof (40%) but the historic strengths do live on reflected in the most common %age alcohol levels used.

That was educational, thanks Firewall. So its a nod to a period in time in whisky heritage, but I can't see how that makes it the best strength for a whisky which seemed to be impllied by a previous poster?

For a flavoursome single malt 'best' is 80 proof & non chill filtered - the way Springbank has always been.Look at the LFW website new releases & spot an unmistakable trend, new releases from Bunnahabhainn, Glencadam, both 46%, both non chill filtered, and now see even Ledaig and Tobermory (with their new 10 yr old presentations) going the same way & apparently winning Mr Joynson's approval...80 proof IS the new standard for SMS. Slainge!

To my understanding 46% is the lowest ABV where a whisky won't go cloudy

So if a bottling is under 46% (43 or 40) it us usually chillfiltered. I am only aware of one bottling that is 40% and unchillfiltered and I was told it was/is cloudy. It was Bladnoch who did that for some reason

Ardbeg 10 - in Sweden it's over 25% more than other Islay enrty-level bottlings. The fact I really didn't like it doesn't make things better, at it's price I much rather have a Springbank 10. I can't believe the hype of Ardbeg.

I see the HP18 mentioned as overpriced/overrated, here I think it's great value for money (and yummy). It's even 40SEK cheaper than the Glenlivet 18, and a good 300SEK cheaper than the Springbank 15 and Yamazaki 18. The only other whisky in that price range that can match, or beat, it is Laga 16.

Sorry but I slightly disagree with Ganga in this case at least from my point view. As I mentioned earlier, I have bought a lot of whiskys from recommendations on this site. I had never even heard of JM before I bought a bottle of Ardbeg 10, it rated highly amongst a lot of the members on the forum so I purchased it. I never got into it at all and I haven't had an Ardbeg yet that I've enjoyed. Same with HP 12, raved about by many of the punters here(and many other places) so I bought a bottle, has to be one of the dullest whiskys I've tried. Even bought another bottle to see if my point of view had changed, this proved to be even more boring than the first, didn't even seem to possess any smoke.

By and large though, most of the whiskys I've seen recommended here I have enjoyed.

About ardbeg ten, I must said that I don't like it a lot (85/86pts for me. 2008 version)as most of the ardbeg I have tasted. Since last weekend :I have tried a 10 years old bottled in +-1975 who's well worth 93/94pts(at least)and 2 IB bottling of ardbeg distilled in the sixties absolutely fabulous.

The ardbeg ten was the whisky whos make me start to like whisky. These days, I don't like a lot peated whisky(brora exepted)and prefer sherried version.

I think macallan is highly overrated. Only (very)old version and the 10 years CS are good whisky (i find).

Ardbeg, then Ardbeg, then i think probably another ardbeg and maybe Laph 10 but i may take a rain check on that one as i believe i almost enjoyed it the last time i had one? I cannot believe it with some of these replies When i posted on here a couple of years ageo about Ardbeg being overrated i was almost banished for saying it. Thank god not everyone believes all the hype out there. HOORAY

I have to concur with Lucas' comments about Macallan Fine Oak series. A dreadful misuse of hype and a waste of decent whisky. They should double cask finish it by returning the remainder to age a bit longer in a sherry cask or pipe, thereby trying to rescue something of an indifferent series of whiskies. (Indifferent is my most damning condemnation of a whisky)Glenmo re-naming their whiskies and jacking up the price was my second choice for overrated whisky. Frankly, IMHO, the older offerings were far superior to the new batch of Nectar D'or et al.Musky

I'm a big fan of Ardbeg, and though I can understand why people may think they're overhyped and overrated, I've got to draw the line when they say that about Uigeadail. It's hands-down my favorite whisky. Very bold, very complex, well-balanced. Overpriced? The price seems highly variable from year to year, so I can see why many would find it overpriced sometimes.

I don't think it's overrated, so much as some people just don't like it that much.

Lagavulin? Very similar in those respects, though $80 is my limit for that one. And its quality has taken a hit in the last couple of years. And if overrated equals overhyped, well, this one gets no hype.

My vote for overrated whisky goes to Glemorangie. It simply has very little complexity.

Not sure what you mean by that. If you mean its over hyped by advertising then I agree. But in order for Dalmore to be overrated I figure people would have to actually consider it good. Not sure I have found anyone that finds any Dalmore more than just okay, and often their opinions are far worse than that.

mikeymad wrote:Nope - had Many VERY good Dalmore's - some are in the greatest beverages I have ever had

Mikey, just curious were these Dalmores, IB's or OB's? If they were OB's were they some of the bottles that are lets just say on the rather pricey side of things? I based my comment mostly on the fact that I have heard to stay away from Dalmore in general. Though the only bottle I have had is their 12 year old, which I found downright aweful.

Although I could believe Dalmore is so focused on their premium offerings, that their more affordable offerings could be some of the worst stuff they have. Either way, the 12 I had may have also been a tainted bottle, because it was nearly undrinkable, so much moldy ranicd orange it was incredible to believe that they could bottle it. While others do not find it great, still thought it was better than how I described it.

Who is online

Go to page

About us

Welcome to the Whisky Magazine forum, a place where enthusiasts, connoisseurs and professionals can come together to indulge in their passion for all things whisky. Discuss your most recent purchases, reflect on distillery visits and share tasting notes on your favourite drams with other like-minded forum users. Stay up-to-date on the latest industry news and events, and get involved in our regular polls. There’s no better place to get your whisky fix!